From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Collazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-00473.

Decided May 10, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated December 5, 2001, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Jonathan J. Silbermann and Duncan T. Brown of counsel; Daniel Fried on the brief), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant is reclassified as a level two sex offender.

The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined that the appellant should be classified as a level two sex offender. Over the appellant's objection, the Supreme Court granted the People's application to have the appellant classified at level three. The court based its determination on its conclusion that the defendant had a history of drug or alcohol abuse, and that he therefore should have been assigned an additional 15 points on the "Sex Offender Registration Act Risk Assessment Instrument."

The People did not meet their burden of "proving the facts supporting [the Supreme Court's] determinations * * * by clear and convincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168-n). The mere fact that, on one occasion while he was in prison, the appellant accepted a quantity of marijuana from a visitor, does not prove, much less by "clear and convincing evidence," that, at the time of his classification as a sex offender, he had a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or that he had ever actually used any drug, whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or any other similar substance ( see generally People v. Santiago, 2001 WL 1657275, 2001 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 690 [Oct. 5, 2001]). The order appealed from therefore must be reversed, and the appellant reclassified as a level two sex offender ( see People v. Mallory, 293 A.D.2d 881).

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Collazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2004
7 A.D.3d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Collazo

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, respondent, v. JOSE COLLAZO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 10, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

People v. Mingo

The People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting a SORA determination by "clear and convincing…

People v. Gerald

The court based its assessment of 15 points for drug abuse upon defendant's admission, as set forth in the…